The Fiscal Cliff

[Bo Diddley]

Is anyone is going to argue with me that if Obama gets his way with further increase in taxes and his level of spending cuts coupled with government "investments", when his term ends the spread between the rich and middle class will be even greater.

Also I can't believe no one took a shot at my question of, if we took all the wealth and divided amongst the whole population, how many years before we would have people bitching about unfairness and the rich. I put, 50,100,150 and 200 as choices. Most of the answers around the office was 20 years.

20 years is too long.

[Uncle Ted]

I wish someone at a news conference would ask Obama, what exactly is the payroll tax. Are people paying into it for the right to have some kind of retirement income or is this truly a tax like a poll tax, gas tax, cigarette tax. It sure as hell isn't an "income tax" because the money doesn't go into a general fund.

Please don't anyone show their ignorance by saying it does go into a general fund. When it comes to discussing these matters, it is really astonishing how many of you clearly intelligent people have your heads firmly entrenched up your butt.

Well, in a way it ends up in the general fund since the government borrows robs the social security fund to help pay for all the things that the income tax revenue can't pay for (the budget deficit):

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

[...]

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

[byu71]

Wuap, why do you think George Bush could be incapable of putting together a coherent sentence, start two wars and still get re-elected and the Republicans increased in strength for two elections after his initial win? Because the Democrats made such a big deal about his tax cuts and the middle class voters decided the Republicans were in the camp of the middle class. The Democrats rode Bush's issues and when Obama promised in '08 that "nobody making less than $250,000 would have their taxes increased one nickel" was effectively 98% of a white flag wrt the Bush tax cuts. Well 98% is a stretch while it is 98% of the people at this point it is $73 billion of the $400 billion which works out to the Democrats waiving 81.5% of a white flag. But hey those Progressives got their shangra la that the rich are now paying their fair share. If reigning in the debt is a serious cause, and the Democrats want to keep middle class voters electing them it seems to me that there is little recourse but to cut the hell out of federal spending. Looking at the the past few days brouhaha with a long term perspective, i.e. going back 12 years to Bush's inauguration, is an obvious victory for Republicans of decreasing tax rates.

It is humorous when someone call out a progressive on this tax thing.

I have heard you say over and over again things were great during the Clinton years. Those tax rates did not hurt the economy.

Then again I hear dems saying or I guess I should say "heard" dems saying how bad Bush was for cutting rates. How that, coupled with the wars have created the debt problem we have.

I wish they would make up their mind. Clinton or Bush tax rates are best for the economy?? You can't talk out both ends. Actually their leader has mastered the trick.


Note: Agan let me make it clear I think the President is a great family man. I believe he is Christian and I also believe he was born in Hawaii.

[frank ryan]

I also believe he was born in Hawaii.

Careful, this might anger some.

[byu71]

Well, in a way it ends up in the general fund since the government borrows robs the social security fund to help pay for all the things that the income tax revenue can't pay for (the budget deficit):

Yes it does. As you recognize and unfortunately some don't, there is a vast difference between receiving taxes to pay for government services and borrowing money to pay for government services. People aren't paying a tax, they are loaning money (forced to loan) to their own government.

From an article dated July 20th, 2011, it showed the Social Security Trust fund owned 19% of the US debt. Debt owed US citizens (includes Trust fund) is more than any other Country.

When I hear people claim old farts don't deserve SS I cry for some people and their ignorance. No wonder they can be swayed so easily to vote one way or another.

As I have said many times, I would be all for seeing how much each individual is currently owed. Reduce that by how much the Trust fund is short and then divy it out by borrowing that amount from China and pay the owners of the Trust fund.

Then go ahead and default on China if we must, not our own people.

[old_gregg]

Also I can't believe no one took a shot at my question of, if we took all the wealth and divided amongst the whole population, how many years before we would have people bitching about unfairness and the rich. I put, 50,100,150 and 200 as choices. Most of the answers around the office was 20 years.

that's because it's a stupid question

[byu71]

I can see it too. The place I don't want cuts is to education. Young people didn't make the choices that got Wall Street in trouble. Young people didn't have any say in our wars. They haven't had power, and thus shouldn't shoulder the responsibility.

Who are you classifying as young people?

If you are including college students, sorry I can't support you. Most of them don't know shit from shinola yet, but they were a big factor in electing Obama.

Have you ever heard them interviewed about financial matters?

I think plenty of my tax dollars go into colleges to keep Sandra Fluk active in school to age 31 or however old she is.

What a joke, permanent student activist. I sure hope she doesn't get government assistance in any way shape or form. If she got a real job, maybe $19 for birth control pills wouldn't seem like such a bad thing.

[Soccermom]

Is anyone is going to argue with me that if Obama gets his way with further increase in taxes and his level of spending cuts coupled with government "investments", when his term ends the spread between the rich and middle class will be even greater.

Also I can't believe no one took a shot at my question of, if we took all the wealth and divided amongst the whole population, how many years before we would have people bitching about unfairness and the rich. I put, 50,100,150 and 200 as choices. Most of the answers around the office was 20 years.

An optimistic me would hope for at least 50 years, but wouldn't be surprised if it took less time. I'm sure we'd see a lot of sweet cars/toys around for a while though. I'd totally put my money in auto industry stocks if that ever happened--at least for the first 5 years.

[byu71]

An optimistic me would hope for at least 50 years, but wouldn't be surprised if it took less time. I'm sure we'd see a lot of sweet cars/toys around for a while though. I'd totally put my money in auto industry stocks if that ever happened--at least for the first 5 years.

I am with you. I wonder how much 18% debt would be paid down.

I love all my kids the very same. I don't know if I like them the same.

Anyway, I gave each of the 5 a chunk of money for Christmas 2 years ago.

I asked all of them to pay down any credit cards with the money or at least that would be my wish. I haven't asked if they did though, a gift is a gift and why get bugged about it.

I know my kids though and one of them probably has more debt now than they (partly their spouses fault). Another one would have also lost it, but bless he heart she is OK with me controlling money I gave her and she didn't have debt because they couldn't qualify for even a credit card.

It worked out well though because she has money for down payment on a house.

[Goatnapper'96]

that's because it's a stupid question

It also lacks "empathy!"

Personally, I find the entire debate about whether wealthy people deserve their wealth to be boring and pointless. From '71's hypothetical to Obama/Warren's "you didn't build that" it is a pointless debate. It matters not if wealthy people deserve their wealth because many don't. BFD. What matters is what limits a semi-free society wants to put on how far the government can go in taking it. We all admit, even liberals I think, that some people have more god-given skills that the market values and we all know what the answer to '71's question is. We also know that there are those who are poor due to circumstances out of their control. We also know there are people taking advantage of our social safety nets when they could be contributors. We also know that it is damn near impossible to distinguish between those who need the nets and those lazy shitbags stretched out in it like it is a hammock. I also know that articulating my opinions as such lack empathy and likely don't poll well to the question "who better understands the pain of the middle class." But in the end the legitimacy of '71s wealth is not what matters to me what matters to me are the limits we get to put on government for making that call. The market isn't perfectly fair but in more ways I think it is fairer than elected humans, who really-really-reallyreallyreally like being re-elected. So I understand the need for safety nets but I want them limited not so much by anything more than the government's capacity to finance them - which admittedly for the past decade hasn't been particularly limiting but the day will come when it will be.

[Uncle Ted]

Is anyone is going to argue with me that if Obama gets his way with further increase in taxes and his level of spending cuts coupled with government "investments", when his term ends the spread between the rich and middle class will be even greater.

Also I can't believe no one took a shot at my question of, if we took all the wealth and divided amongst the whole population, how many years before we would have people bitching about unfairness and the rich. I put, 50,100,150 and 200 as choices. Most of the answers around the office was 20 years.

20 years would be very optimistic IMO.

For example, consider what happens to a lot of lottery winners and pro athletes. There are people that can't manage money if it is not paycheck to paycheck.

[byu71]

But in the end the legitimacy of '71s wealth

Let's get one thing clear. I speak for the "big guy", but when it comes to wealth, I am a "little guy".

[Goatnapper'96]

Let's get one thing clear. I speak for the "big guy", but when it comes to wealth, I am a "little guy".

Regardless I am a fan of bridling the government's ability to come take it, based upon the argument that you don't deserve it, and spread it around. Even if it won't take very long or go very far.

[byu71]

Regardless I am a fan of bridling the government's ability to come take it, based upon the argument that you don't deserve it, and spread it around. Even if it won't take very long or go very far.

I agree. How do you determine deserve? Maybe the marketplace, maybe luck, in rarer cases than most people people, by screwing other people by various means, maybe just plain work harder. We could go on and on.

My own view is in most cases it came by what I would call positive efforts, not the negative ones and thus why I use the term deserve.

The other thing it would be nice for this society to get away from is money envy. It might be well to get into, has a great family envy, spiritual envy, pleasing personality envy, charitable acts envy, even penis envy.

[LA Ute]

The Democrats' Coming Civil War: The party is poised for a showdown over Social Security and Medicare. Obama vs. the liberals.

For Democrats, there may be few things more entertaining than watching the Republican Party self-destruct and fight with itself these last few weeks. But it may be time to put away the party favors – because a Democratic internal war may be on the way.

Just as Republicans were so divided over taxes – from failing to pass their own “Plan B” bill last week, to their leaders splitting votes on last night’s legislative package – Democrats are about to endure an emotional debate about one of their own bedrock principles: the protection of programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid....